Paul Ryan: I reluctantly support Boehner’s plan

posted at 5:53 pm on July 26, 2011 by Allahpundit

Not the first time Ryan’s gone to bat for Boehner during the debt-ceiling standoff. Ten days ago, he tried to convince Republican freshmen during a caucus meeting that, yes indeed, hitting the ceiling would be a very bad thing.

This may well be the weightiest endorsement the leadership could hope for. Good enough to get to 218?

The Budget Control Act takes an important step in the right direction by cutting $1.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade. Critically, it does this without resorting to Senator Reid’s gimmicks and without imposing the president’s preferred tax increases on American families and the struggling economy.

This bill is far from perfect. We still have a long way to go toward getting the key drivers of our debt — especially federal health-care spending — under control. But considering that House Republicans control only one-half of one-third of the federal government, I support this reasonable, responsible effort to cut government spending, avoid a default, and help create a better environment for job creation.

Yes, it’s true that the White House is using overwrought and misleading implications, and we’re still a long way from default. But do you really want to spend the next several months going on record as to which discretionary-spending programs (including the military) the administration should cut as much as 20, 30, or 40 percent? This is not the way to downsize. The political process won’t tolerate it, in part because this approach would require you to ask the American people to put aside their proclivity for divided government and trust Republicans to govern for the next couple of decades, which is what it will take to get us out of this mess. Taking huge, unnecessary risks like this is not consistent with long-term political success…

We will never achieve entitlement or tax reform with a doctrinaire liberal in the White House. Any agreements to do so in “out years” would probably be unenforceable even if agreement were achieved. And we can only do so much while controlling one half of one branch of government. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House Republicans, you have laid some great groundwork to rectify both of those situations. Now it is the time to accept a well-won victory and move on.

Opposed to the bill are influential House conservatives like Jim Jordan and Louie Gohmert and influential Senate conservatives like DeMint and, er … Lindsey Graham. The Club for Growth is also a no, which will make incumbents worried about a primary challenge think twice. All of which brings us to the money question: How does this thing pass both chambers? According to lefty Greg Sargent, the Democrats are betting that it can’t — and that’s when Reid will make his move:

Here’s the game plan, as seen by Senate Dem aides: The next move is to sit tight and wait for the House to vote on Boehner’s proposal. The idea is that with mounting conservative opposition, it could very well be defeated. If the Boehner plan goes down in the House, that would represent a serious blow to Boehner’s leadership, weakening his hand in negotiations…

At that point, the Senate would then pass Harry Reid’s proposal, and then kick it over to the House, which would increase pressure on Boehner to try to get it passed, since he was unable to pass his own plan.

In other words, the viability of Reid’s plan may depend on the viability of Boehner’s plan, which is why you’re seeing a huge push among Republican pols and pundits today to rally the caucus behind it. If Boehner can get it through on Wednesday, Senate Republicans will have every incentive to filibuster Reid’s bill on Thursday in order to force Senate Dems to suck it up and pass Boehner’s plan as a last resort. Conversely, if the House chokes on Boehner’s bill, Reid’s bill is the only game in town and moderate Republicans in both chambers might swing behind it in the name of averting default. The good news is, the GOP controls its own destiny: If the House passes Boehner’s plan, all the pressure will fall on moderate Democrats to abandon Reid and pass the House bill before August 2. The bad news is, controlling that destiny depends on caucus solidarity, which gives Democrats the advantage. Pelosi is backing Reid and Hoyer is vowing that very few Democrats will back Boehner, which means the GOP will have to deliver 218 on its own. Meanwhile in the Senate, the GOP caucus is united against Reid’s planso far, but does anyone seriously believe Collins, Murkowski, or even Tom Coburn will hold out and default if Reid’s bill is the last chance?

The pitch pro-Boehnerites are making to House conservatives is, essentially, that we don’t want to let the Democrats “win” by having Reid’s bill emerge from Congress. But if, like some “true conservatives,” you subscribe to the logic that it’s better to have 30 Marco Rubios in the Senate than 60 Arlen Specters, then letting Reid “win” may be the next best option to seeing your own plan pass. If Boehner’s plan fails and Reid’s plan gets through, then fine: The squishy RINOs who voted with the Democrats to pass it will face primary challenges over their votes next year, which will result in either a more conservative Congress (if the primary challengers win the general election) or a more Democratic caucus (if they don’t). Either way, the Republican “brand” improves by weeding out the centrists. That’s a mighty big risk to take given what a bluer Congress would mean for the GOP’s chances of passing Cut, Cap and Balance or entitlement reform, but there you have it. For some, forcing moderates to take a tough vote may be a feature, not a bug.

Update: What exactly are we arguing about between these two plans? Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former CBO chief, wonders:

The plans are quite similar. Indeed, the best way to think about the Reid plan is that it is simply the Boehner plan with fake cuts (largely war spending) added on. Put differently, executing the Reid plan is the same as executing the Boehner plan and then adding an unrestricted debt limit increase on at the end. Since so-called “clean” increases are a signal to markets that the U.S. cannot address its fundamental problems, this is extremely dangerous and undesirable.

The bottom line. The ideal debt-limit package would combine up-front discretionary cuts with medium-term discretionary controls and real policy changes to entitlement programs that address the spending explosion and display to international capital markets the ability of the United States to address the debt threat. The Boehner plan is not ideal, but certainly is a strong B+. The Reid plan, in contrast, is a gentleman’s C at best.

Philip Klein counters: Since both plans are more or less the same and both fail to address America’s real fiscal problem, i.e. entitlements, why not pass the Democratic version and let them own the resulting downgrade?

The biggest problem with adopting the Boehner approach is that it will enable Democrats to escape responsibility for any downgrade by claiming that it was the result of Republicans’ unwillingness to approve a longer-term debt limit hike. But if Republicans approved a version of the Reid plan, it would eliminate that ability…

No doubt, adopting a version of the Reid plan would lead to some degree of backlash among conservatives, especially because it violates Boehner’s vow that any increase in the debt limit be coupled with higher value cuts. But Boehner’s current plan is already under attack, because it already compromised on much more fundamental matters – it doesn’t make permanent structural changes and it doesn’t deal with entitlements, which are the primary drivers of our long-term debt.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Funny they should be talking about “out years”….how about a spending cut of $0 in return for a modest rise in the debt ceiling…..just change spending -$1.6T this fiscal year and +$1.6T in 2021. In fact, how about -1.6T in each of the next three years, and +1.6T in 2018-2021?

I think if they hadn’t come up with Cut, Cap and Balance, I would be dead set against the current plan. But they did and while I called all my senators (two states) to untable CCB, I want our guys to win. So Boehner’s plan it is.

I caught Senator Rand Paul talking on the radio this morning and he pointed out an important fact. We all must remember that any cuts mentioned by the President or congressional leaders are taken from a baseline budget. Now we plain speaking folks think a cut is a cut. You cut $3 from an amount and you end up with $3 less, right? Not in Washington, DC. The baseline budget being used in Washington, DC as we speak calls for +$10 trillion increase over ten years. So the if the Boehner plan, for instance, calls for $3 trillion in cuts what we actually talking about is cutting $3 trillion from a $10 trillion increase. Or, putting it another way, they are cutting a $10 trillion increase to a $7 trillion increase. So a $3 trillion cut is actually a $7 trillion increase.

The biggest problem with adopting the Boehner approach is that it will enable Democrats to escape responsibility for any downgrade by claiming that it was the result of Republicans’ unwillingness to approve a longer-term debt limit hike. But if Republicans approved a version of the Reid plan, it would eliminate that ability…

The easiest way to win at tug of war is to let go of your end, and let your opponents fall on their asses.

Yep. True baseline cuts won’t happen till the GOP controls the House, Senate, and WH. That’s why it is important not do anything now which allows Scooter to credibly blame The pubbies for anything revolving around the debt ceiling issue. The 2012 elections should trump all else. That’s when we’ll start to make major repairs.

Boehner’s plan won’t be any good for the GOP and it won’t solve the problem. If the White House won’t agree to something reasonable like CCB, then force a balanced budget by doing nothing! It would be painful, but we’re in for pain any way you cut it.

In total, if appropriations in the next 10 years are equal to the caps on discretionary
spending and the maximum amount of funding is provided for the program integrity
initiatives, CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce budget deficits by about
$850 billion between 2012 and 2021 relative to CBO’s March 2011 baseline adjusted for
subsequent appropriation action. As requested, CBO has also calculated the net budgetary
impact if discretionary savings are measured relative to its January baseline projections.
Relative to that baseline, CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce budget deficits
by about $1.1 trillion between 2012 and 2021.

We could charge with everything we have, and probably lose what little we’ve gained, but it costs us nothing to sit back and wait for reinforcements come 2012.

Meaningful budget reform is not happening now. It will never happen unless Obama gets replaced. Anybody who wishes to fix our budget had better start looking for a candidate who can actually beat Obama.

I still have no answer on the ceiling limit…it was 1 trillion, till Feb. But the plan also said if accepted than the president can ask for 1.6 trillion (I don’t know if it’s added or just .6 more), and no time limit was mentioned.
So, if one assumes that political hacks don’t always give all the answers, it could be 2.6 trillion ceiling through 2012.
Now someone, please, link me to where I am wrong…

Why don’t they just take some smaller cuts now — the rest of this fiscal year — and raise the debt ceiling only enough to get us to Oct 1, where it can be tied to the 2012 budget via a hard cap for the year and a budget that the that gets passed having major reductions in spending.

At least that would afford putting the onus of the President to stay within the money available and if revenue numbers don’t come in as planned, then Obama would have to trim his operations.

Another plus with this is that the House can say to Reid, no Continuing Resolution games this year. No budget, no change in the debt ceiling.

The CBO says Boehner’s plan would only reduce outlays by $13 billion in 2012 and would only reduce the deficit by $1 billion.

steebo77 on July 26, 2011 at 5:58 PM

CBO
estimates that the legislation would reduce budget deficits by about $1.1 trillion between 2012 and 2021. Savings in discretionary spending would amount to about $875 billion, mandatory spending would be reduced by $20 billion, and the savings in interest on the public debt because of the lower deficits would come to about $175 billion.

You know, the narcissistic rat is really getting cornered.
I was thinking earlier today during work about these hearings into Obama’s ATF trafficking guns down into Mexico.

Boy, polls are dropping, 2012 keeps looking worse and worse and now theses hearings into the project gun runner thing.
Yeah, if something really crazy came out during these hearings that pointed to Obama directly… and then knowing that some of these guns have been used in crimes.. even responsible for the deaths of a few Americans, well… that could be bad.

But then, yeah, I can see why it would be “so tempting” for Obama to use a fake financial emergency to declare himself dictator. It could really solve a few of the problems he’s facing right now.

Yeah, let me see… Take a chance on becoming dictator or doing a perp walk out the front door of the White House? Decisions decisions.

Both sides are a joke in this matter… $100 billion a year is only about 3% lessin spending…

Needs to be at least 10% like the “Pappy Plan”…

Time to vote out the Republicans and replace them with the Tea Party in 2012… I’m in…

Khun Joe on July 26, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Than you are a loser (politically)…it’s more complicated than “that’s what I want”, Obama is finding that out.
No president, no congress, has ever cut the budget by that amount. Coolidge came the closest, by increasing the budget just a little.
A third party is only to split the Republican party, only a person who wants the dems to stay in control support such a foolish move.

We already know – we have money to keep paying on the debt. We know we have money to pay entitlements and the military – and we know we have money to pay all the Dimmocritic social programs and special interests …

After that – the stories are going to emerge on WHO OBAMA DECIDED TO PAY OFF – and there is NO way for him to win that. He axes Seniors – he loses them and their kids in the 2012 election. He axes the Dimmocritic special fluff programs and he loses the left.

MAKE THIS MAN PROVE (AGAIN) WHAT A HORRID CHIEF EXECUTIVE HE IS.

We cannot lose this folks. After a week – he’ll be begging to sign CCB.

estimates that the legislation would reduce budget deficits by about $1.1 trillion between 2012 and 2021. Savings in discretionary spending would amount to about $875 billion, mandatory spending would be reduced by $20 billion, and the savings in interest on the public debt because of the lower deficits would come to about $175 billion.

right2bright on July 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM

$1 billion in 2012 reduction.

The rest over 10 years, assuming later Congresses don’t increase spending at all.

If you are PANTYWAIST Republicans yes, he’s right. If the GOP leadership isn’t up to the task…….

FIRE BOEHNER…….Get someone that can CUT the freaking spending!!!

PappyD61 on July 26, 2011 at 6:20 PM

In the past 150 years, name one president who has cut the “freaking spending”, according to you, every president we have had are “PANTYWAIST” material, even Reagan.
Get a grip…we are on the verge of doing something no other political leaders have ever done (except maybe Coolidge).
And under Coolidge, only 2% of the wealthiest paid federal taxes.

Obama chokes on nothing. He is an unflinching type x extraordinaire. And if you thought that Clinton got away with crap. I remember a comic-strip cartoon; the premise was, if a huge bomb were to detonate, the best and safest place to be was along side Bill. It is worse now, much, much worse.

When the repubs say it’s time to go with what we got, it means they just blinked and the Won won again. What is wrong with you people? We’ve given you all the support we can muster. We crashed the server trying to tell you to stick it to our dear leader. We want you to stop spending money we don’t have. NOW!

right2bright,
That means a conservative President in 2012 is a must, or every deal will just melt away……………………

rob verdi on July 26, 2011 at 6:24 PM

No doubt, absolutely correct, not one bit of grey in that statement.
Without a committed fiscal conservative President in 2012, all this will be for naught. And it has to be a no holds barred, tough, and take it to the people and screw Washington style president…good luck.

It’s this plan or Reid’s. Pass it in the House, send it to the Senate, and let Obama choke on it. Caiwyn on July 26, 2011 at 5:58 PM

x2. When smart, principled, folks like West and Ryan say that this is the best right now, then I agree. Will be fun to watch Obumba have to eat a crap sandwich…yes, even if it means he gos on TV again to blame Buuuuush.

That means a conservative President in 2012 is a must, or every deal will just melt away……………………

rob verdi on July 26, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Yep. Not only that but the tea party can be a big help in cleaning out some more old, dead GOP wood in both legislative branches. We will have a decent selection of presidential candidates who will fit the bill. He/she isn’t going to make everyone happy, but with a revitalized conservative GOP base, I doubt there would be much straying.

The inside-the-beltway, green eyeshade debt ceiling blame game is overrated as an election gambit. What counts is the overall state of the country, which neither a deal nor a default is likely to affect in a manner meaningful to the typical voter, and the respective parties’ fundraising and voter turnout efforts. Look at any comment thread. It’s obvious that most people’s opinions are already etched in stone. The few genuinely undecided will cast their votes based on totally marginal phenomena like the performance of local sports teams or the prevalence of hurricanes.

The GOP is seriously playing with fire and will never face up to reality until they get seriously burned!

Why are we always being presented with Dem or Dem-lite proposals?

According to Ryan and many on this forum:

…But considering that House Republicans control only one-half of one-third of the federal government…

Then lay your cards on the table and tell the Dems to deal or fold! Our card is CCB – which Reid refuses to bring up for a decent vote and rather opted to table it. It will definitely attract more than the four Dem votes required to pass hence the gymnastics from the Elite (GOP and Dem) to prevent it from getting a vote.

Can someone tell me why Boehner is prepared to go to the mat on this sham proposal of his despite the lack of support from his caucus, the Senate declaring it is DOA and the White House threatening to veto? And yet, a bill that passed with a bipartisan majority in the House was allowed to flounder in the Senate?

A lot of us out here are getting REALLY ANGRY and if the GOP persists in its foolhardy quest to alienate its base, trust me – the loss of the House and inability to capture the Senate and White House will be the least of their worries in 2012. An all-out civil war will break out in the GOP causing many of the Elite to lose their jobs! We will worry about winning control of the White House and Congress later.

When was this ever done in the past…this is historical, maybe not how some of the fiscal hard liners want (who probably have never seen a P&L statement in their life) it to play out, but this is unprecedented, and against a Senate and President that are totally fiscal liberals…

. An all-out civil war will break out in the GOP causing many of the Elite to lose their jobs! We will worry about winning control of the White House and Congress later.

That’s to say there will be a later. Obama must be defeated at all costs. If Boehners plan wins it means Obama loses. He looks like the weak sack of s..t he is. This is “short term.” It comes back up before the 2012 election right in Obama’s and the Democrats lap. Is this the best deal? No, but right now it seems it might be the only deal. Flame away at me as you will…

I just don’t know, most of these plans are weak, but we need the Presidency.

rob verdi on July 26, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Don’t delude yourself, my dear friend! The dirty not-so-secret is neither of the GOP Elite nor Dems are interested in cutting spending or reducing the size of Govt. They love the power that big Govt. brings them…

Who is the Establishment pushing for GOP nominee? ROMNEY! Have you heard him say anything meaningful about the debt debacle? Have you heard him talk about slashing spending or the size of Govt.?

Sorry, they take us for fools and until the base revolts and throw all of them out, we will NEVER see any change.

Quick question: since neither Boehner’s nor Reid’s plan will stave off default or a credit rating downgrade, then why are we being pressured to pass either? Because we’re tired? Because we think it’s what can get done right now? To avoid political backlash? What’d Fred say? The long game? How much longer we got? Seems like we’re hitting this ceiling hard and often lately. So if everyone agrees that neither bill will force solvency, and insolvency is THE very real and present danger, then why are Boehner’s and Reid’s bills even being considered?

So tell me, what great leader in the past has done more to reign in spending?

right2bright on July 26, 2011 at 6:46 PM

right2bright, I do NOT live in the PAST! The ACTIONS of today should match the PROBLEMS of today!

I could care less what some “great leader” in the past did or did not do. We worked our butts off to deliver a great victory to the GOP in 2010 so they could do two things:

1. Repeal Obamacare and refuse to appropriate any more spending for Obamacare; and
2. Stop the spending binge – force the Govt. to live within its means.

Boehner and the other RINOs, as usual, ran quickly for the leadership spots: “Pick me, pick me, I can do it…” A sizable number of the base were sceptical and pleaded and cajoled that the GOP should not hand the reins of power to the same inept politicians that squandered our hold on Congress and the White House the last go-around.

Unfortunately, they were voted in and have proceeded to do exactly what we predicted they will do – CAVE at every opportunity!

I ask just one thing: “If the RINOs cannot do the job, why can’t they just step aside for conservatives to take the helm?”

I am more than confident that a Speaker Jim Jordan or Senate Minority Leader Jim DeMint/Rand Paul would accomplish far more within a shorter timeframe than these inept blowhards. Why, you ask? Because Obama/Reid/Pelosi will know that they mean what they say and say what they mean – and will be more serious in their negotiations.

Please… someone tell me this is a joke, right? Obviously Obumbles slipped his own figures into Boner’s budget, right? I mean, come-on, this has gotta be a long-time Washington insider joke, right? Maybe an early birthday gift from Boner to Obumbles, or the RINO’s idea of DEEP-DEEP cuts.

Boehner’s plan would force a revisitation of this debate in the election year. It is the short-term aspect of the plan that Obama is dead set against. His lofty long-term crap is nothing but abject fear.

How? Boehner’s $100 Billion budget cut turned into nothing and now Boehner is handing Obama a $Trillion on the worthless promise of Democrats to cut spending in years to come.

For establishment Republicans, them being in power is winning. They get great perks, chairmanships, everyone wants to talk to them and throw money at them, it’s great… for them. But for America we’re still losing just with different guys in charge.

Obfuscation from both sides of the aisle, but complete deviousness from the dhimmicrats.

And this is what we get after the 2010 elections? There is absolutely no hope for the Republicans if they cannot stop the terminal bleed out that is happening with the federal gov’t expenditures. We don’t have the money to pay for this crap, and they want to borrow more. When is anyone going to admit that?